And oh, how come we're going back two weeks to the second presidential debate?

How about we talk about what's happened since, like Obama;s incredibly imaginative story about how four Americans died over a spontaneous protest in Benghazi over and English language movie trailer most Libyans could not have seen? A LIE he maintained for two weeks while the truth unfolded through the foreign media?

So yeah, want to talk about lies in the past? Let's go back to Cash for Cars, dip$#@!. How that $3,000,000,000.000 program created jobs in the auto industry, a LIE your super hero without a cape looked straight into the camera and without flinching stated as gospel.

Yep, that boondoggle sure did create jobs in the auto industry...in Japan, Korea, Canada and Germany...

Strong Job Figures Belie Romney’s Attacks
The New Yorker
Posted by John Cassidy
November 2, 2012
(excerpts)According to the Labor Department’s October employment report, 171,000 new jobs were added last month—the highest figure since February. The new positions were spread throughout the economy, with retailing (plus 36,000), health care (plus 31,000), and business services (plus 51,000) showing particular strength. The only big group of employers that shed workers were state and local governments (minus 13,000) which are still being hit by budget cuts.

Over the past year, the total number of people employed has risen from 140.3 million to 143.4 million, according to the household survey. After allowing for population growth, the number of people unemployed has fallen by a million, and the number working part-time or no longer actively looking for work has dropped by about half a million. The number of people who have been out of work for more than six months—the hard-core unemployed—has fallen by more than eight hundred thousand, and it now stands at five million.

The problem is job growth has not kept up with population growth. We need 104,116 jobs a month to keep up with growth of the country. Now there was help in the past as people quit the work force to retire but they are not doing that like they use to. http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...ulation-growth

Many economist say we could soon need more than 110k jobs a month to keep up with population growth as many people who went back to college now reenter the work force looking for higher paying jobs to pay off student loans.

You can't just say we made 100k new jobs but skip by the fact that we had 104k new people looking for work.

How many were part time? How well do they pay compared to all the jobs that were lost?

Why do the experts keep saying that job growth will have to exceed 250,000 per month to really make a dent in this thing? Maybe because there are those millions of people who have given up looking for work and would come back if there was hope. And then, as detailed above, there is the matter of population growth.

Obama's administration is not going to foster a robust economy. Perhaps nothing will at this point but for sure, an administration that is constantly attacking the productive and stacking new job killing regulations isn't going to. I see now that EPA is going to try and shove through some anti-coal regulations during the lame duck period.

Those jobs claims are skewed. Many of those people took two jobs part-time to try to equal one decent job, so cut those numbers down a bit and you have a terrible jobs growth. Unless of course people want to work 16 hour days to live halfway decently..

The plural of anecdote, of course, is not data. So here are some data: In its
first three years the Obama administration imposed more than 100 economically
significant regulations — those costing $100 million or more. That's roughly
four times as many as the Bush administration did during a similar period,
according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Liberal outfits insist Heritage is wrong. But even by their Obama-friendly
accounting, the current president has been issuing major rules at a rate 24
percent faster than Bush. Despite the lip service he often pays to the free
market, the president has overseen massive regulatory expansions. See, e.g., the
banking industry; vehicle mileage standards; Obamacare's seemingly endless new
rules; carbon emission limits on coal-fired power plants; energy-efficiency
standards for home appliances; and dozens more.

According to a report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, "The published regulatory burden for 2012 [alone] could exceed $105
billion. . . . Since January 1, the federal government has imposed $56.6 billion
in compliance costs and more than 114 million annual paperwork burden
hours."

Ask Jones about paperwork. Buckingham Slate is overseen by an alphabet soup
of federal and state agencies, and "each one of them wants something from us all
the time that is costing us money" — spill-prevention plans that require hiring
an engineer; pre-shift inspections; dust monitoring; and more. Jones estimates
that five of his 45 employees spend 20 percent of their time simply filling out
paperwork.

If you're struggling futilely to repeat the name I used for the Republican candidate, well, I call him 'Romoney', or Ro-money, because he is an 'old money' plutocrat, stooging for the corporations and for the bizarre political agenda of the Mormon elders.